dismissed H-1B Case: Construction/Remodeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATIER OF D-B-E-E-S- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 16, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRA~T WORKER 
( 
The Petitioner, a kitchen and bathroom remodeling contractor, seeks to continue to employ the 
Beneficiary as a "project engineer" under the H -1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See linmigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a -specialty occupation 
pursuant to the applicable regulations. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record satisfies all evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely-restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
Matter of D-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
c 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is' normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner described itself as a kitchen and bathroom remodeler. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner explained that its primary line 
of business is in kitchen and bathroom remodeling, and new construction. The Petitioner added that 
it has also "branched into another area of home services which is directly involved into the 
re-designing, installation and servicing of electronic apparatus and security systems per customers' 
specifications." All of this work, stated the Petitioner, involves the services of the Beneficiary whom 
the Petitioner has alternatively referred to as its "project engineer" or "electrical engineer." 
The Petitioner provided the following job duties for the proffered position: 
(A) 
(B) 
(C) 
Review customers['] proposals in regards to electronic equipment, appliances, etc. 
to incorporate to residential homes, townhouses, condominiums or businesses and 
discuss the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives; 
Direct or coordinate installation, maintenance, support, testing activities of the 
appliances, "electronic equipment and the "highly sensitive alarm systems" to 
ensure compliance with specifications, codes, and that the customers' 
requirements and expectations are entirely met. · 
Prepare budget proposals for purchase of electronic equipment, appliances, and .. 
materials involved in the installation of the projects, etc. for the company's 
officers and customers; 
2 
Matter ofD-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
(D) Oversee and direct electricians and the sub-contractors in all phases of the 
projects to ensure successful and timely completion within budget; 
(E) Handle the customers['] complaints (if any), to determine nature and extent of 
problem and recommend remedial measures. 
The Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in eleCtrical engineering 
or architecture and interior design. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position requires an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 1 
A. Position Requirements 
We first find that the Petitioner's claimed entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in 
electrical engineering or architecture and interior design for the proffered position, without more, is 
inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In general, 
provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., architecture and interior design, a minimum of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. In such a case, 
the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as 
electrical engineering and interior design, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree 
be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is 
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required 
"body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. 2 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not done so here. 
The Petitioner has not explained how the acceptable fields of study (electrical engineering, compared 
to architecture or interior design) are closely related or that they are both directly related to the duties 
1 
The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
2 
In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so 
narrowly interpret these provisions to, exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a 
minimum entry requirement, degrees ~in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of 
record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
3 
Matter of D-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
and responsibilities of the particular position proffered in this matter. In fact, the Petitioner 
consistently distinguishes the duties of the proffered position from the duties of the architects, 
designers, and interior designers that the company utilizes for the "'beautification' aspect of the 
remodeling business." 
Absent evidence of how the field of electrical engineering is closely related to architecture and 
interior design, or that they are all directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular 
position proffered in this matter, it cannot be found that the particular position proffered in this 
matter has a normal minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, under the Petitioner's own standards. In other words, it cannot be found 
that the proffered position requires anything more than a general bachelor's degree. As explained 
above, USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree 
in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 
1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain 
what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). 
The Petitioner's statement alone indicates that the proffered position is not in fact a specialty 
occupation. 
B. Position Description and Classification 
Second, we find that the proffered duties are more consistent with the duties of a position falling 
under the "Electricians" occupational classification corresponding to Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 47-2111. We find this classification is more appropriate than the 
"Electrical Engineers" occupational classification (SOC code 17-2071) which the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under on the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support 
of the H -1B petition. 3 
The duties of the proffered position include "re-designing, installation and servicing of electronic 
apparatus[es] and security systems." Specifically, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would, 
among other duties, "[ d]irect or coordinate installation, maintenance, support, testing activities of the 
appliances, electronic equipment and the 'highly sensitive alarm systems,"' and "[o]versee and direct 
electricians and the sub-contractors in all phases of the projects." These duties are consistent with 
the typical duties of "Electricians" as described in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and Occupational Information Network (O*NET), 
both of which we recognize as authoritative sources on the duties of the wide variety of occupations 
that they address. 
3 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USCIS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment" or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See generally Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015). 
4 
Matte~ of D-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
r r 
For instance, the Hancfbook states that electricians typically "install, maintain, and repair electrical 
power, communications, lighting, and control systems in homes, businesses, and factories."
4 
The. 
Handbook specifically states that ''experienced electricians may work with building engineers and 
architects to help design electrical systems for new construction." 5 O*NET provides a similar list of 
job duties, stating that electricians typically "[i]nstall, maintain, and repair electrical wiring, 
equipment, and fixtures,:' "[ e ]nsure that work is in accordance with relevant codes," and "[ m ]ay 
install or service ... electrical control systems. "6 
On the other hand, the Handbook states that electrical engineers typically "design, develop, test, and 
. supervise the manufacturing of electrical equipment (emphasis added)."7 O*NET likewise states 
that electrical engineers typically "[r]esearch, design, develop, test, or supervise the manufacturing 
and installation of electrical equipment, components, or systems for commercial, industrial, military, 
or scientific use (emphasis added)."8 Here, however, the record does not indicate that the 
Beneficiary's design, installation, or other services would involve the manufacturing stage of the 
electrical appliances and systems the Petitioner ultimately utilizes. The sense in which the 
Beneficiary would design, install, and service these electrical appliances and systems appears limited 
to determining which products and systems to use, purchase, and where to place them. There is 
insufficient indication that any of the Beneficiary's duties would involve the initial design and 
manufacture of these appliances and systems contemplated by the Handbook and O*NET when 
discussing electrical engineer duties. 
We also note that the Petitioner's primary business is in residential kitchen and bathroom 
remodeling, and even its expansion into the security systems business is another aspect of its "home 
services." There is insufficient evidence in the record that the Petitioner provides engineering 
services or alarm system services "in banking institutions" or "commercial facilities and community 
services," as claimed. On the balance, we find that the duties of the proffered position are more 
consistent with the duties of an electrician than the duties of an electrical engineer. 
4 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbo~k, 2016-17 ed., "Electricians," 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/electricians.htm#tab-2 (last visited Dec. 14, 2016). The Handbook 
is available in both printed form and online at http://www.bls.gov/oco/. Our references to the Handbook are to the 2016 
- 2017 edition available online. 
5 /d. 
6 See O*NET Details Report for "Electricians," https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/47-2111.00 (last visited Dec. 14, 
2016). 
7 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics­
engineers.htm#tab-2 (last visited Dec. 14, 2016). 
8 See O*NET Details Report for "Electrical Engineers," https://www.onetonline.org/link!details/17-2071.00 (last visited 
Dec. 14, 2016). 
5 
Matter of D-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
C. Analysis of Criteria 
We will continue our analysis of whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), with the understanding that the proffered position 
is, more likely than not, a position under the "Electricians" occupational classification.9 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the Handbook as an 
authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it 
addresses.10 
The Handbook states that "[a] high school diploma or equivalent is required" to become an 
electrician.11 It contains no indication that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent, or any college·education at all, is essential for such positions. While the Handbook 
states "[s]ome electricians start out by attending a technical school" and that "[m]any technical 
schools offer programs related to circuitry, safety practices, and basic electrical information," it does 
not state the length of these technical programs or that graduation from a technical program is 
necessary.12 Therefore, the Handbook does not support the proposition that the proffered position 
requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
The record of proceedings does not contain sufficient persuasive documentary evidence from any 
other relevant authoritative source establishing that the proffered position's inclusion within the 
"Electricians" category establishes the proffered position as, in the words of this criterion, a 
"particular position" for which "[a] baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the 
minimum requirement for entry." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). Thus, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied this criterion. 
9 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
10 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the 
occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and 
responsibilities of a proffered position, and USCIS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the burden of 
proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would 
normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
11 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Electricians," 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/electricians.htrn#tab-4 (last visited Dec. 14, 2016). UM . 
6 
Matter of D-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
I 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by USCIS 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shant~ Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quotingHird!Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or another independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate by 
reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals 
in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." 
The Petitioner has not, therefore, satisfied the criterion of the first alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
A review of the record of proceedings indicates that the Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated that 
the duties the Beneficiary will be responsible for or perform on a day-to-day basis constitute a 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-B-E-E7S- Inc. 
position so complex or unique that it can only be performed by a person with at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The description of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique 
that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. · The record lacks sufficiently 
detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as more complex or unique from other 
electrician positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that this 
position is significantly different from other positions in the occupation such that it refutes the 
Handbook's information to the effect that th~re is a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is not a requirement. 
In its RFE response and again on ~ppeal, the Petitioner attempts to elevate the proffered position 
from an electrician position by virtue of the Beneficiary's responsibility for securing ele9trical 
permits. The Petitioner states that "an electrician cannot design and are not able to create and draft 
the necessary plans, etc. which obtaining and securing the permits involves. Securing the necessary 
permits is critical to [the Petitioner's] business because without them, they cannot do the work." 
However, we observe that in where the Petitioner maintains its contractor's 
license, electrical permits must be completed by a licensed electrician for any kind of electrical work 
involving appliances, fixtures, and other electronic equipment.13 Thus, we are not persuaded by the 
Petitioner's suggestion that the proffered position is akin to an electrical engineer, as opposed to an 
electrician. 
The Petitioner states that the proffered position "specialize[ s] in areas such as power systems 
engineering or electrical engineering manufacturing," as well as "communications, signal processing 
and control system." But the Petitioner has not explained which job duties would require such 
specialized knowledge, that is, how the Beneficiary would actually apply such knowledge in the 
performance of his daily duties. Nor does the evidence of record establish why a few related courses 
or industry experience alone is insufficient preparation for the proffered position. While a few 
related courses may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
13 
Section of the Code states that "A master general or restricted electrician shall apply for a 
permit from the Department before making any electrical installations, alterations, or repairs." Section of the 
Code authorizes a licensed electrician to "install, repair, maintain, or erect any kind of electrical 
wiring, conduits, machinery, appliances, motors, fixtures, signs, radios, television and electronic equipment, 
electronically operated heating equipment, elevators, or any other electrically operated apparatus or device in or about 
any premises in the county." 
8 
Matter of D-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the proffered position is so complex or unique relative to 
other positions within the "Electricians" occupational category that do not typically require at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent for entry into the occupatipn in the 
United States, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
The Petitioner has not expressly asserted eligibility under this criterion. In a previous case, the 
Beneficiary was approved for H-1B employment with the Petitioner beginning on December 10, 
2012. Although the Petitioner stated on the H-1B petition that it was established in 2011, it 
submitted no evidence pertinent to anyone who previously held the position and may never have 
employed anyone in the proffered position prior to the Beneficiary. While a first-time hiring for a 
position is certainly not a basis for precluding a position from recognition as a specialty occupation, 
it is unclear how an employer that has never recruited and hired for the position would be able to 
satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3), which requires a demonstration that it 
normally requires at least a bachelor's degre,e in a specific specialty or its equivale~t for the 
position. · 
Further, in a l~tter submitted in response to the RFE issued in this matter, the Petitioner stated, "[The 
Petitioner's president] is under the training of [the Beneficiary] to be able to continue with his 
company's projects at the time in the future when [the Beneficiary's] H-1B contract with the 
company expires and [the Beneficiary] is no longer part of the business." The Petitioner specified 
that its president is a master electrician. 
Thus, the Petitioner anticipates that in the future its president, a master electrician, will be able to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not indicate that its president 
possesses a minimum' of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. This strongly 
suggests that the Petitioner does not require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
or its equivalent for the proffered position. 
For the reasons explained above, we. cannot conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the third 
criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 14 
14 While a petitioner may believe or otherwise assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific specialty, 
that opinion alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a specialty occupation. Were USCIS 
limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's 
degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a 
token degree requirement, whereby all individuals employed in a pa~ticular position possessed a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in the specific specialty or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other words, if a 
petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in fact require such a specialty 
9 
Matter of D-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
The duties of the proffered position, such as planning, directing, and participating in the installation 
of electrical appliances and handling customer complaints, contain insufficient indication of a nature 
so specialized and complex that they require knowledge usually associated with attainment of a 
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. In other words, the 
proposed duties have not been described with sufficient specificity to show that they are more 
specialized and complex than those of electrician positions that are not usually associated with at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. As such, the evidence of record 
does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a spebalty occupation: 1 
IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation, we need 
not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify additional issues 
to inform the Petitioner that these matters should be addressed in any future proceedings. 
A. Payment of the Full Amount of the Proffered Wage 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(1) states that, in order for a petitioner to satisfy its required 
wage obligation, "[t]he required wage must be paid to the employee, cash in hand, free and clear, 
when due." 
A previous H-1B petition the Petitioner filed for the Beneficiary was approved for employment from 
December 2012, to September 2015. Thus, the Beneficiary was approved for H-1B employment 
with the Petitioner throughout all of 2014. The wage proffered in that petition was $65,021. 
The record contains a copy of the Beneficiary's IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, and Form 
1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, showing that the Petitioner paid him a total of 
$17,130 in 2014. His remuneration falls significantly short of the proffered $65,021 annual salary 
degree or its equivalent to perform its duties, the occupation would not meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty 
occupation"). 
10 
Matter of D-B-E-E-S- Inc. 
the Petitioner claimed it would pay him in 2014. This in turn suggests that the Petitioner may not 
pay the Beneficiary the full amount of the proffered annual wage of $73,694 in the instant case. This 
is another reason the instant H-1B petition may not be approved. 
B. Corresponding LCA Requirement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(1) stipulates the following: "Before filing a petition 
for H-1B classification in a specialty occupation, the petitioner shall obtain a certification from the 
Department of Labor that it has filed a labor condition application in the occupational specialty in 
which the alien(s) will be employed." While DOL is the agency that certifies the LCA before it is 
submitted to USCIS, USCiS is responsible for determining whether the content of the LCA supports 
and corresponds to the H-1B petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) (stating that USCIS "determines 
whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the 
occupation named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation"). 
As was explained above, we have found that the proffered position is a positiOn under the 
"Electricians" occupational classification, rather than the "Electrical Engineers" occupational 
classification for which the LCA is certified. But the LCA is certified for a 17-2071, Electrical 
Engineer position although the proffered positionis not likely such a position. The LCA, therefore, 
does not correspond to and support the H-1B petition. This is another reason why the H-1B petition 
may not be approved. r ~ 
V. CONCLUSION 
We are aware that the instant H-1B petition is an extension petition. The Director's decision does 
not indicate whether the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions were reviewed. If the 
previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory 
assertions that are contained in the current record, the approvals would 'consti!ute material and gross 
error on the part of the Director. We'are not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of 
Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be "absurd to suggest 
that [USCIS] or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent." Sussex Eng 'g, 
Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-B-E-E-S- Inc., ID# 124734 (AAO Dec. 16, 2016) 
11